RT Journal
A1 McDonald CJ, McDonald MH
T1 INvited commentary—electronic medical records and preserving primary care physicians' time
JF Archives of Internal Medicine
JO Archives of Internal Medicine
YR 2012
FD February 13
VO 172
IS 3
SP 285
OP 287
DO 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1678
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1678
AB
We both hear strong complaints from primary care physicians (PCPs) about electronic medical records (EMRs) cutting their time efficiency. A long and detailed venting occurred 4 years ago when we were together at a social gathering and M.H.M. was bragging about his brother's (C.J.M.’s) involvement in the genesis of EMRs.1,2 Two general internists—both women—did not agree that such involvement was praiseworthy. “Think Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb,” one said wryly, “ the EMR steals sixty minutes a day from me!” The other had a 6-month-old baby and said, “He is sleeping by the time I get home,” and tears welled. There were positives. They loved its instant delivery of patient data. Computer order and prescription writing were probably okay. But note writing was a definite drag compared with paper, though they liked producing legible notes that were computer available. What vexed them the most was the EMR inbox. Compared with the paper version, it seemed to increase the number of work items, inflate the time to process each, and divert work previously done by office staff to them.